![]()
Part 1
Social Innovation and Co-Design—Mapping the Territory
![]()
1 Social Innovation as Context
Even a cursory examination of the literature that presents, promotes and evaluates social innovation reveals an overwhelming diversity, which extends not only to practical methods and fields of application, something that might reasonably be anticipated given the burgeoning case-book its practice has generated in recent years, but even to its purposes and modalities of operation. Social innovation has been described as “… a quasi-concept, one whose utility lies less in fabricating certainty than in fostering cohesion across a policy network, composed of researchers, analysts and decision-makers” (Jenson and Harrisson 2013, 14). This description seems equally applicable to the broader networks of practitioners and academics who are also engaged in social innovation in its many guises—social innovation is defined as much by the community of practitioners that it draws together as by the unified set of practices or purposes it represents, or that clearly distinguish it from other activity. The field is made harder to grasp because distinctions are also drawn between “social entrepreneurship”, “social enterprise”, and “social innovation” and the terms may be conflated (Grimm et al. 2013, 440). Phills et al. make a case for treating both social entrepreneurship and social enterprise as special cases of social innovation, which they see as a more flexible conceptualization that draws attention not only to the person or organization that brings about the innovation, but also to the mechanisms by which it is brought about (Phills, Deiglmeier, and Miller 2008). Although, for convenience, we will accept Phills et al.’s proposal that the terms are related, raise many of the same issues, and address many of the same concerns, it is important to note that this usage is not necessarily generalized: for instance, “social innovation” may also be used more restrictively than we intend here, to denote acts of “civic entrepreneurs” who create innovation in the public sector (Keohane 2013, 129).
There is much diversity in the type of “social” problem being addressed by social innovation, ranging from international development aid; to national or local health, poverty, or education; or to gender equity and sustainability, and much more. Some of this divergence reflects different perspectives on the levels at which innovation takes place. The Bureau of European Policy Advisors (BEPA) identifies three categories of social innovation. The first, playing out at a “social” level, is concerned with specific, and often immediate or pressing, social challenges that are associated with a locality, group or issue; the second, a “societal” level, is “directed towards society as a whole”, establishing or reforming institutions that allow it to function in an improved fashion; the third, described as “systemic”, addresses structural aspects of society, involving “fundamental changes in attitudes and values, strategies and policies, organisational structures and processes, delivery systems and services” (Hubert 2011, 10). The distinction between social and societal levels is one of scope, whereas the systemic category pays attention to changing parameters or values that cut across these levels, such as people’s understanding of climate change (Hubert 2011, 10). BEPA sees each of the levels as being subsets of the others: achieving innovation at the social level potentially forms part of change at the societal level, and the fact of enabling these innovations may contribute to systemic change (43).
Murray, Caulier-Grice and Mulgan (2010) propose that social innovations need to address not only observable problems affecting people’s day-to-day lives, but also to contribute to “higher-level” reform: they must “simultaneously meet social needs and create new social relationships and collaboration … they are both good for society and enhance society’s capacity to act” (Murray, Caulier-Grice, and Mulgan 2010, 3). BEPA also distinguishes between a “process” and an “outcome” definition of social innovation: “the concept … stems from the need for change both in terms of the outcomes that innovation is expected to deliver and the process through which these outcomes are generated…. [I]t relates not only to developing innovative solutions but also to new forms of organisation and interactions to tackle social issues” (Hubert 2011, 36, emphasis in original). Both of these views link the creation of new social relationships to the longer-term capacity of society. Because their benefits are both immediate and carry future potential, social innovations must be seen not only with reference to the specific problems they are able to solve, but also in terms of the foundations they lay for future progress: “they leave behind compelling new social relationships between previously separate individuals and groups which matter greatly to the people involved, contribute to the diffusion and embedding of the innovation, and fuel a cumulative dynamic whereby each innovation opens up the possibility of further innovations” (Mulgan et al. 2007, 35).
Seen in this way, social innovation goes beyond being “social” merely because it is not solely for private benefit: it achieves both a specific social purpose and a general one of benefitting society by building its capacity to adapt and create. Hence, a social innovation process might be directed at achieving change at any of the levels defined, but in doing so have consequences that go well beyond the original intention. Caulier-Grice et al. draw on Schumpeter to propose a categorization of seven types of social innovation outcomes, noting that they may also be classed as incremental developments of something already existing; radical new ways of understanding or acting; or “generative” of further development (2012, 24–25). Even the most limited or specific outcomes may thus have far-reaching effects at the societal or systemic level: the provision of services that allow people to communicate by phone who are otherwise unable to do so because of hearing or other disabilities not only improves the individual’s quality of life, but opens up possibilities for active economic and political participation that can have much broader impact. Similarly, the provision of a new service may lead to the development of new organizational forms and institutional frameworks: the emergence of on-line gambling services has impacted not only the way providers of gambling services organize themselves, but also the ways that sporting systems raise funds and communicate what is occurring during games; the way governments regulate the industry; and the way social services need to be organized to connect with and support problem gamblers.
The diversity of approaches to understanding and classifying social innovation, the levels at which it occurs, and the difficulties in establishing causal links between specific actions and outcomes are reflected in the wide variety of definitions applied to it (see for example Borzaga and Bodini 2012, Howaldt and Schwarz 2010, Hubert 2011, Mulgan et al. 2007, Nicholls, Simon, and Gabriel 2015, Phills, Deiglmeier, and Miller 2008, Pol and Ville 2009). Huybrechts and Nicholls take the position that “… the diversity of discourses that characterize the definitional debates around social entrepreneurship reflect the internal logics of a broad range of influential, resource holding actors who are actively involved in shaping the field, rather than any attempts at capturing the ‘reality’ of the field itself (Dart 2004, Dey and Steyaert 2010, Nicholls 2010)” (2012, 33), an observation that appears to apply equally to social innovation in the broad. This encourages us to move beyond taxonomic approaches to understanding social innovation, and to pay attention not only to conceptual and empirical distinctions within it, but also to the underlying purposes and strategies of those who are working in and promoting it. If social innovation is indeed being mobilized as a “quasi-concept”, and effort is being expended to create an impression of coherence, it is of interest to examine the ways in which this “unity” is being constructed, and the dynamics of inclusion, exclusion, and legitimation that are entailed by those constructions. While the different proponents of social innovation all see their activity in some measure as “doing good”, it cannot be taken for granted that they agree on what constitutes “good”; and while they are able to share their experiences in a lively exchange aimed at developing their practices, the place of any specific practice (and particularly co-design) within social innovation may differ quite markedly depending on who is invoking it: “… we are struck that social innovation, as it is currently conceived, could suggest myriad different and sometimes conflicting policy adjustments” (Grimm et al. 2013, 446). The different constructions of social innovation are suggestive of quite different values and assumptions about the nature of innovation and society itself, and therefore cannot be simply ignored. Hence, rather than attempting to (once again) reestablish definitional order by distilling some normative statement of what qualifies and what does not qualify as social innovation, this work will treat it as a “concept-in-use” and focus on the way it is presented and enacted.
The Stories of Social Innovation
Social innovators are extraordinarily diverse, the ways they approach social innovation and conceive of it having effect are equally divergent, and the types of problems on which it is brought to bear are legion. However, most social innovation activity is framed within specific narratives that explicitly or implicitly explain why it is necessary and justify the sort of approach being taken. These framing narratives place social innovation in history, and at the same time imply a broader diagnosis of society, presenting a sort of origin story or creation myth. They co-exist, sometimes overlap, and occasionally conflict, but present quite distinct perspectives on social innovation that reveal differences in both underlying value orientations and assumptions about the nature of and solutions to social problems. This chapter identifies and examines three broad narrative streams, with an emphasis on the diversity of interpretations and pre-occupations that they reveal. Along the way, a number of key players in social innovation will be mentioned, but it should be emphasized that a comprehensive survey of the plethora of organizations that are producing (or claim to be producing) social innovation is well beyond the scope of this book, and mention of any specific players in what follows is merely by way of example, rather than claiming to present any form of systematic, let alone exhaustive, survey of “social innovators”. The chapter will conclude by summarizing some of the key tensions between the narratives, tensions that impact both on the way co-design is situated within the practice of social innovation and on the sorts of outcomes it is expected to produce.
The different stories of social innovation, although often emphasizing the recency and dramatic progress of the phenomenon, are all set against depictions of the past that significantly affect their current perspectives. Attempting to address the problems of humanity is not a recent pursuit, and modern approaches to social innovation both grow out of and sometimes reject aspects of past attempts to mitigate against the effects of poverty, disease or disadvantage. One approach is represented by the philanthropic foundations, many of which have existed around the globe for more than a century, making charitable donations and supporting a multitude of activities intended to alleviate suffering or tackle its root causes. Often founded based on endowments by successful business people, and reflecting a wide variety of priorities, preferences and beliefs about how best to assist people, these have complemented and sometimes replaced government programs with similar objectives. In the US, some 86,700 foundations were listed in 2014, with total assets of USD 865 billion, and making gifts of more than USD 60 billion (Foundation Center 2016). Although the foundations seldom directly engage in social innovation, more often acting as funders and suppliers of expertise and other resources for operating groups (often not-for-profits or charities), the sheer scale of financial influence wielded by these organizations means that they may exert significant influence on any area they choose to become engaged with.
A different approach is exemplified by the Young Foundation, which grew out of an urban studies think tank, the Institute for Community Studies, in the United Kingdom. This was founded by Michael Young, who had an important influence on the establishment of the post-war welfare state in Britain. Rather than playing a funding role, the Young Foundation and similar organizations more often research social innovation; train those wishing to engage in it; promote and advocate for it; and may become directly involved in its implementation. The Young Foundation itself is credited with establishing “more than 60 organisations, including the Open University, the Consumers’ Association, the Economic and Social Research Council, and the School for Social Entrepreneurs” (Young Foundation 2016). Although this approach to social innovation also aims to address social issues, it tends to address this by emphasizing building social capacity or establishing new institutions that embody social change.
A third perspective points to precursors to social innovation in the work of Benjamin Franklin, Max Weber, Émile Durkheim and Joseph Schumpeter, which are seen to have reemerged in the French social movements of the 1970s (Nussbaumer and Moulaert 2006). Other contributing forces were protest and worker movements addressing a diverse range of social concerns, and the growth of “niche, alternative, self-standing experiments” (Moulaert 2005, 66) that explored new ways of living and relating. These more sociological perspectives present social innovation as paying attention to contextually situated relationships and their role in innovation more generally, redressing a tendency to depict it as a primarily economic or technological phenomenon. Rather than being seen as resulting from philanthropic flows of cash or the establishment of new organizations, institutions or policies, this narrative sees social innovation as an on-going process of adaptation, one that is inherently contested and political. The actors are not necessarily institutional or powerful in their own right, but may be transient expressions of broader social concerns or conflicts.
Against each of these historical frames, the recent burgeoning of social innovation is presented in quite distinct ways. From the sociological perspective, a reduction in the visibility of social innovation activity occurred during the prosperous 1980s and 1990s, although research centers, like the Centre de Recherche sur les Innovations Sociales (CRISES) in Canada, were established during this time. This period also saw the establishment of a new “post-fordist” neoliberal discourse that asserted the pre-eminence of market ideology as the normative model of social relationships. According to this tradition, during the first decade of the 21st century, and particularly after the financial crisis of 2008, this hegemony has been increasingly challenged, and social innovation has become more relevant than ever: “ ‘the return of social innovation’ is manifested by the utilization of the concept as an alternative to the logic of the market and to the generalized movement to privatize systems of economic allocation, and so is expressed in terms of solidarity and reciprocity (Nyssens 2000)” (Nussbaumer and Moulaert 2006, 73, own translation).1
“Philanthrocapitalism”
This reading of the last decade of the 20th and first decade of the 21st centuries is, not surprisingly, not universally accepted. In another narrative, this period is one of sweeping change for business and the global economy, where revolutionary new technologies, techniques, and ways of operating are developed, which can now be applied in the social sphere. It also sees the emergence of a new type of entrepreneur, who is concerned not only with making profits but also with making a positive impact on the world. “The common thread … is that of mutual advantage: the unprecedented alignment of financial and social incentives toward a greater public good” (Eggers and Macmillan 2013, 7). This is not merely a natural evolution of past practices: it represents a “tectonic shift” in “less than a generation” (Keohane 2013, 1). Although people have always turned their minds to intractable issues like poverty or famine, “[w]hat is different about this new activism is its momentum, sweep, and fundamental approach to problem solving” (Keohane 2013, 1). These new ways of thinking about business have been enabled by (and perhaps even arise from) the epochal advances of information and communications technology of recent decades. The private sector has learned to grapple with the massive change driven by these technologies, building entire markets that did not exist twenty years ago, as well as seeing whole business models wither and be replaced. Companies could not “ ‘cost-cut their way’ to growth and success, [so they] turned their focus to innovation as the way to organic growth” (Bates 2012, loc183). Their speed, agility and inventiveness is now available to revolutionize the social sphere. By using the same clever ways that corporations have discovered for generating clarity and precision about the problems they are trying to solve, social innovation can proceed along a disciplined and replicable path. Solutions take the form of “business models”, which describe how they create value for the various participants in the solution, and so become “sustainable”. Like all good business ideas, these models then need to be pushed out to the broadest possible market, and so are likely to have to overcome “not invented here” attitudes (loc 343) or other irrational objections that might deny their inherent practicality and self-evident value.
Three new orientations underpin these changes. Firstly, there is the search for new ways of doing things (or new things to do) that do not merely extend existing markets or strengthen existing positions, but t...
